Judgment : The petitioner filed O.S.No.117 of 2007 in the Court of IX Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain items of property. The parties to the suit are members of the same family. The petitioner placed reliance upon a document, dated 15.03.1983 said to be a deed of family settlement. Apart from other parties to the suit, 1st respondent herein i.e., 5th defendant filed a written statement. Based upon pleadings, the trial Court framed issues. Thereafter, trial of the suit commenced, and evidence on behalf of the petitioner i.e., plaintiff was closed. It appears that defendants 1 to 4 in the suit reported no evidence. Therefore, it is the turn of the 1st respondent herein i.e., 5th defendant to adduce evidence. At that stage, he filed I.A.No.1250 of 2011 under Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to amend the written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it was stated that the written statement was filed on the basis of the advice tendered to him by an Advocate engaged by him and that in the recent past, he changed his Advocate and a different advice altogether was given. It was further stated that the objective of seeking amendment is to make the denials, particularly about the averments in the deed of settlement, specific; and to elaborate the pleas that were already raised in the written statement. The petitioner opposed the application. Through its order, dated 27.12.2011, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Sriman, learned counsel for respondent No.10. The petitioner endorsed that respondents 2 to 9 are not necessary parties. The revision is directed against the order, dated 27.12.2011, through which the trial Court allowed I.A.No.1250 of 2011 filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking permission to amend the written statement. Amendment of pleadings, is a facility, extended to the parties to a suit to ensure that if any important aspect was not stated, when the pleadings were filed, they may be supplemented duly explaining the reasons for the proposed amendment. Amendment of pleadings, is a facility, extended to the parties to a suit to ensure that if any important aspect was not stated, when the pleadings were filed, they may be supplemented duly explaining the reasons for the proposed amendment. However, taking into account the fact, that indiscriminate filing of applications for amendment of the pleadings is causing delay in disposal of the suits and is resulting in change of the nature of the proceedings, the Parliament stepped in, and added proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. making the amendments of pleadings very stringent. Almost a total bar is imposed against filing of petitions, seeking amendment of pleadings, if the trial of suit commences. However, the bar is not absolute and much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, which are to be asserted; even while keeping in view, the objective underlying the proviso. The 1st respondent filed the written statement in November 2007 and the issues were framed by the trial Court shortly thereafter. It is nearly four years thereafter, that the application seeking amendment of the written statement was filed. The 1st respondent did not mention in his affidavit that any facts, which he did not know when the written statement was filed, have come to his knowledge thereafter and that the necessity to seek amendment of the written statement has arisen. The only basis he pleaded was that the written statement was drafted on the basis of an advice tendered by an Advocate and that the Advocate whom he engaged subsequently, advised him differently. When the Parliament has virtually prohibited amendment of pleadings, in case the trial of the suit has commenced, the ground pleaded by the 1st respondent cannot be said to be the basis for permitting amendment, four years after the written statement was filed and after closure of the evidence on behalf of the petitioner i.e., plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purpose of seeking amendment was only to make the plea that was already raised in the written statement, more elaborate and that no fresh grounds are urged. Emphasis is laid upon the plea as to the truth or otherwise of the document dated 15.03.1983. If the intention is only to make the denial specific, this Court can certainly clarify that the denial in relation to the said document shall be treated as specific. Emphasis is laid upon the plea as to the truth or otherwise of the document dated 15.03.1983. If the intention is only to make the denial specific, this Court can certainly clarify that the denial in relation to the said document shall be treated as specific. Since rest of the proposed amendment is only about elaboration of what was already on record, it is not at all necessary. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is however directed that the plea as to denial of the document, dated 15.03.1983 shall be treated as specific and the trial Court shall take the same into account. The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P. also shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.